ban it.

OLeve it.

Its like box office, but free.

how about u just ignore her, it's really not that hard, if u see her name by the post just ignore it and move on. simple. if u think it is challenging then maybe you should accept the challenge instead of saying she will be ruining ur ramadhan :roll: at the end of the day she isn't forcing you to reply now is she?

banned

or what Fifi says

I think 99% of us ignore Anon1 anyway

Interesting you have not suggested banning those who came out with pure abuse - YOU ARE THE PIECE OF SHIT Now fuck off or learn some humanity - but unable to respond to my critique, you have to resort to abuse, such as and I quote, you are talking out of your arse, and you feel I should be banned? Sounds a little hypocritical to me!

If you can't control yourself, surely you should not post. If you don't have knowledge on a topic to discuss it you should avoid fabricating hadiths on it or commenting until you've done research - moaning about it being too academic or scholarly or too deep or abstract are symptoms of someone who has never bothered to research it and cannot refute it and wants it explaining but doesn't want to appear to be asking for that.

On all the topics I've discussed so far, I have found you have no expertise to speak of whatsoever, from economics, philosophy, politics, usul, history and fiqh yet glibly cut and paste whatever you find on the net, whether it is credible or not, and think that people should accept it.

It is no wonder you have to resort to banning someone you disagree with as your dubious project of promoting BritishIslam and a new kufr identity of BritishMuslim becomes difficult... I personally am not surprised with such tactics - the govt is using them to silence its critics, and those who emulate the govt resort to the same to silence their critics... what next, burn their books?

Salaam i dont think we should entertain this person she obviouslly has some mental problem which prevents her from posting in a sane and humane manner with adab, now if a child read her posts (because there is a possibility children or youngsters can access this website) they may percieve her mannerism as acceptable also its easy to post as an anonymous i think that new users should have to verify their accounts through email to be allowed to post this is the only way you will get people who want to be here and not people who sign up or come on to post garbage.

:badgrin: Defo ban her... actually just ban all the Anonymous users

I can't find flaw in what you cut and paste?
- You argued the majority of scholars argued voting was halal - when questioned on this, and 100 scholars who said it was haram, you cited a handful - where are the rest? Still in hiding? Or were you lieing and got caught out?
- You argued that truth was with the majority - when challenged you fabricated a hadith on the topic which did not state truth was with the majority.
- You argued that there were multiple Caliphates at the same time and posted a map to prove the case - when challenged that the map did not show multitude of Caliphates and prove it did you ran off onto a different topic
- You argued that voting and bayah are the same - when challenged they are not, bayah is fard, voting is not, you could provide no proof for voting!
- You argued that a husband could not force his wife to have sex and even did not know what the marriage contract entailed - provided with a Quranic verse that permitted the husband to use force with a disobedient wife you denied it and brought hadith which were not related to the subject!
- You argued it is permitted to be British Muslims but when your logic was applied to the Hindu or DevilWorshipping identities, it was found it allowed a Muslim to call himself a HinduDevilWorshippingMuslim too - yet instead of questioning your logic, you stood by it!
- You argued it democracy is allowed but when shown that in democracy sovereignty is with man and not allah you still chose to believe in democracy - a system of kufr!
The list of your dubious and kufr ideological positions just goes on and on...

Let's look at one example in a little more detail of your fabrications/dodgy cut and pastes or whatever you want to call it - where you were caught red handed!

I SAID:
Likewise, if the majority were correct, they would forward their evidence. Noone can or have provided evidence that sovereignty should be with the mob, or that it is not fard to appoint a Caliph through the bayah, or the classical scholars were wrong when they dumped and gave no credibility to democracy or that it is kufr to legislate according to the majority whim/desire...

YOU SAID:
The prophet said: “Allah will never allow my Ummah to unite upon misguidance and incorrect beliefs. Allah’s mercy, blessings and protection are with the largest group of Muslims. And he who deviates from this largest group of Muslims will be thrown into Hell.” (Tirmidi)
Now tell me, doesn't that sound awfully democratic?

I SAID:
Is this the hadith you are referring to?
روى الترمذي في الجامع من حديث ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال: إن الله لا يجمع أمتي على ضلالة , ويد الله مع الجماعة و من شذ شذ إلى النار .

YOU SAID:
erm... probably. I just asked someone else "rememeber that hadith? what was it?" on Tribune but the arabic words there seem to be following the same.
Why?

I SAID:
Because the hadith does not translate to what you have translated, it has problems according to muhaditheen, the subject matter is not what you have alleged...
That's why I ask if it is the same hadith.
If it is the same hadith, it is absolutely disgusting how you are twisting sayings of the Prophet to match your incorrect notions

YOU SAID:
ok, what does it mean then? and throwing up (false?) disgust does not mean that you are not wrong.

I SAID:
Allah will not gather my ummah on dalalah (kufr/misguidance) - and the hand of Allah is over the political community (jamaa'a) and whoever segregates will be segregated in hellfire (Tirmizi)

Lieing about the Messenger to justify your kufr western democractic ideology!!! And caught red-handed doing it! Disgusting and disgraceful! You should repent and be careful of how you play with Islam.

You wrote:

On the one hand, we get constant posting.

On the other, especially today, it has simply been a slagging match with the basic guist being:

Anon1 saying: "you are a civil servant being paid for your views!"
Me (You) Saying: "you are denying qur'an and sunnah and concealing the truth when you find it inconvenient"

Again fabrication to justify your argument of a ban!

The discussion had been, the views you and ed are promoting in this site and magazine are those consistent with the govt's view of what islam should be, a British Islam and a British Muslim identity - you promote democracy, majority opinion to be correct, fund and freedom, rights for women, opposing and attacking Muslim groups the govt does not like (and labels extremists!), justifying all the evils the govt does, encouraging entering the kufr political system whilst majority of scholars prohibit it, permitting legislating, permitting membership of kufr parties/groups (and Islamic ones are haram!), supporting the existence of Israel and opposing any suggestion of getting Muslim govts to intervence militarily to protect Palestinians... the list just goes on and on...

Either you are doing it for free, which is hard to believe one would be foolish enough to do, or you are receiving funds from the govts PVE project which many muslims are secretly accessing (to maintain an independent position which is compromised if people know of the funding!).

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are more likely to be the latter than the former!

Instead of explaining how your ideology is different to the govt's version of Islam, your argument is let's ban this user implying that your ideology, values and paradigms are the govt's and you are little more than (paid or unpaid) workers advocating this agenda...

You wrote:

you do realise that your translation of that hadith is not awfully different from the one that I had used and still supported the same point?

The hadith is totally different and no matter of twisting and turning can change that. Your translatin is posted above along with the actual translation - your conclusion was different to what you are trying to now apologetically post! People can go back to the original post and follow the discussion that preceded and followed it and make their minds up regarding the twisting of hadiths and their translations (if you can call it that - it is more a fabrication of hadith!)

You wrote:

It was you then you when confronted by someone else that when hadhrat Uthmaan was chosen as the Caliph, according to some texts the people of Makkah were polled over who should lead when the shura and the original committe could not decide - it was you who tried to get away from the quotes by arguing semantics to hide from the truth "it was not an election is was a survey" ignoring conveniently that if that was the method used, the person who would have been given the greater share of the "survey"w ould be nominated the caliph...

Please provide authentic narrations of what was done in Mekkah - I challenge that this is another fabrication!

You just can't help yourself from lieing can you! Disgusting!

Readers can make their own minds up from what evidence you produce to justify what polls were conducted in Mecca...and the reality of the actual process of appointment that was being followed.

not banned. just ignored (sometimes)

You]<br /> <blockquote>- You argued that a husband could not force his wife to have sex and even did not know what the marriage contract entailed - provided with a Quranic verse that permitted the husband to use force with a disobedient wife you denied it and brought hadith which were not related to the subject!</p></blockquote> <p>and I will stand by that. There are plenty of ahadith where the prophet wasasked about situations where he could have told the husband to take his right, yet he did not.[\quote]</p> <p>You violate a basic maxim which I told you about earlier which renders your entire view invalid - what the prophet(saw) did not do is not evidence - sunnah as a source of law is what the prophet(saw) did!</p> <p>Secondly, your view as to why he did not mention in some narrations to husbands that they can force their wives to have sex can easily be refuted by similar reasoning that the rule was already known to Muslims so he did not reiterate it as it appeared in the famous Quranic verse that permitted force to be used. Furthermore he wanted to explain the non-tangible non-visible events\effects of the wife disobeying. </p> <p>Which explanation is correct - noone knows as the absence of action invites 101 alternative possibilities and as there is no evidence one cannot conclude any of them! Thus the onus is on you to bring evidence to prohibit the use of force when Allah permits it!</p> <p>[quote=You wrote:

Remember that it is your view that all that is allowed has been made allowed and all that is forbidden has been made forbidden and as such your view requires specific evidence of it being allowed. a verse of the qur'an or a hadith which tells the husband to take what is rightfully his, yes you cannot provide with such evidence.

i have cited classical scholars before who argue what I argue including the Hanafi school.
Jsut because it is politically correct you cannot accept this conclusion - but in fiqh, we follow evidence and not kufr notions.
The Quranic verses that clearly state that if one suspects his wife of disobedience he can use force including hitting her. If a wife refuses sex if he orders it is disobedient and he can use force. You now need to provide evidence to say he can't use force.

[quote=You]

You argued it is permitted to be British Muslims but when your logic was applied to the Hindu or DevilWorshipping identities, it was found it allowed a Muslim to call himself a

I argued and still argue that we ar allowed multiple identities. that you reject the qur'an and sunnah when it comes to identities is not my fault. The ansaar and muhajiroon are recognised in islam. so are tribes. so was Hahdrat Bilal as being Habashi and Hadhrat Salman as being farsi.[quote=You]

Noone argues multiple identities are not allowed - you cannot answer the argument so have to move to a discussion that multiple identities are allowed.

The discussion is about a particular bond and collective social identity - called nationalism!

Not all bonds are allowed in Islam - for example shirk was made haram as was Muslims calling themselves by labels or bonds of masihiyeen or yahuud... Thus each bond has to be examined on a case by case basis to determine if it is permitted or not.

One is allowed the identity of a father, a son, a worker, a helper... no problems as all the evidences allow it. One can be labelled according to where he is from as per even the names of the scholars like Bukhari or Baghdadi or companions like Suhaib. You evidences allow these labels or bonds. Not one is an example of a collective or society wide bond - bring even one example of such a bond! You have not done so to date and bringing irrelevant bonds or labels is not evidence.

Furthermore your problem is to prove the Prophet(saw) bound them all together using these terms - did all the companions call themselves Abysinnians or Romans or Meccans or Medinans or Helpers or Migrants? Of-course not! That was not their common socio-political bond - their collective bond was Islam and they were Muslims. You fail to understand this simple point and thus import kufr ideologies that islam has not sanctioned.

Furthermore the British identity contains notions of loyalty to kufr laws, authority, borders, lands, culture, history... all of which contradict Islam - and several hadith forbid Muslims from asabiyyah -
"He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyah or who dies for `Asabiyah." Abu Daud
" ...People should give up their pride in nations because this is a coal from the coals of hell-fire. If they do not give this up Allah (swt) will consider them lower than a lowly worm which pushes itself through khur (feces)." Abu Daud and Tirmidhi
"He who calls for `Asabiyyah is as if he bit his father's genitals" Mishkat al-Masabith
"There are indeed people who boast of their dead ancestors; but in the sight of Allah they are more contemptible than the black beetle that rolls a piece of dung with its nose. Behold, Allah has removed from you the arrogance of the Time of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance) with its boast of ancestral glories. Man is but an Allah-fearing believer or an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and Adam was created out of dust." Tirmidhi and Abu Daud

You wrote:

Please provide authentic narrations of what was done in Mekkah - I challenge that this is another fabrication!

My bad. I should have typed Madinah. You are right in this case - the Makkans were not asked, the mention (by another member miught I say) was about madinah.

Caught again red handed fabricating! Of-course you have to admit it now or look to be a liar as you cannot bring an iota of evidence for your argument! It's your only route out!

As I said, most of what you cite is so riddled with error and kufr that noone who as the slightest bit of reading on the subject can stomach it and has to object!

Fear Allah - that this is islam you are playing with - and it is youth you are trying to mislead!

3. Ban ALL anonymous posters.

s.b.f wrote:

Everybody is a believer when things are going well.
- Hamza Yusuf

And when things are not going well, they make them halal with misapplying Islamic principles or jump into bed with Bush.

Anonymous1 wrote:

s.b.f wrote:

Everybody is a believer when things are going well.
- Hamza Yusuf

And when things are not going well, they make them halal with misapplying Islamic principles or jump into bed with Bush.

What?

RY -what the??! Why is the twisting of convo being carried on here?

If she really is liking the revival to use it as a diary or to get attention, surely she would sign up? Is that not fair?

Anonymous1 - why don't you just sign up on here? How difficult is that?

agreed with Sully. Just signed up and anyway, you're "anonymous-ness" was busted.

or maybe revival is too low for you? thats how it feels like after all the post you've written and you still havent signed up.

and you should know how great it is to have an account. so much easier to keep track of what is happening.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

s.b.f wrote:

Everybody is a believer when things are going well.
- Hamza Yusuf

And when things are not going well, they make them halal with misapplying Islamic principles or jump into bed with Bush.

In your case I assume the analogy would be to reject qur'an and sunnah when it means you have to concede an argument.

Verses which state what happen with the ruh in another reality can not be used to argue the status of humans - it's called a category error.

And fabricating hadith to justify democracy or voting for kufr is rejecting Quran and sunnah which forbid these kufr ideologies.

s.b.f wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

s.b.f wrote:

Everybody is a believer when things are going well.
- Hamza Yusuf

And when things are not going well, they make them halal with misapplying Islamic principles or jump into bed with Bush.

What?

RY -what the??! Why is the twisting of convo being carried on here?

If she really is liking the revival to use it as a diary or to get attention, surely she would sign up? Is that not fair?

Anonymous1 - why don't you just sign up on here? How difficult is that?[/quote]

What's the point of an account when one can post without one? What has it got to do with fair or unfair?

Don't ban her. This is a discussion forum - everyone has a right to their opinion. This is what makes discussions interesting to read. And anyway - posting in a disrespectful, crude and class less way like this, makes everyone see for themselves what she is all about.

There's no weight in anyones message when one has to resort to swearing to make their argument seem stronger.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Interesting you have not suggested banning those who came out with pure abuse - YOU ARE THE PIECE OF SHIT Now fuck off or learn some humanity - but unable to respond to my critique, you have to resort to abuse, such as and I quote, you are talking out of your arse, and you feel I should be banned? Sounds a little hypocritical to me!

MuslimSister wrote:

Don't ban her. This is a discussion forum - everyone has a right to their opinion. This is what makes discussions interesting to read. And anyway - posting in a disrespectful, crude and class less way like this, makes everyone see for themselves what she is all about.

There's no weight in anyones message when one has to resort to swearing to make their argument seem stronger.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Interesting you have not suggested banning those who came out with pure abuse - YOU ARE THE PIECE OF SHIT Now fuck off or learn some humanity - but unable to respond to my critique, you have to resort to abuse, such as and I quote, you are talking out of your arse, and you feel I should be banned? Sounds a little hypocritical to me!

**YOU ARE THE PIECE OF SHIT Now fuck off or learn some humanity
you are talking out of your arse**

These comments were from other users, Yaqub and You to be precise, and not from annonymous1 - you seem to have misunderstood the post and its point.

If annonymous1 is to be banned, why should those who resort to such haram statements be permitted to abuse and insult others whilst everyone watches in silence? Or is there a more sinister reason annonymous1 is being banned?